Barefoot/Minimalist Running

Orphia wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

That said I'm also not a big advocate of gait analysis by default. Gait analysis would have me in motion control, but I tend to run in neutral, low protection shoes.

What do you mean by "in motion control"?

Motion control is roughly an uber-stability shoe. I've got a distinct over-pronation in my right foot, partly as a result of a broken ankle, outcome of a vehicle accident, and torn ligaments. A motion control shoe should, in principle, help to stabilise that, by limiting the rotation during the forward swing. The stiffness of the heel cup, instep band, and varying densities and resilience in the midsole construction all contribute.

I re-started running in Saucony Hurricanes, which was fine up until the 16 model, when the amount of cushioning in the forefoot was increased by about 50%. That led to enough change in the strike geometry that I can't run in them, so it forced me into looking elsewhere.

I was already using Inov-8 shoes on the trail, which are all neutral, with minimal cushioning anyway. So when the Hurricanes were no longer a viable option I moved to Inov-8 Road Claw 275 for roads.

I'd suggest that thinking of listening to the body - much like with food control or what you should eat - is only if you KNOW what you should be listening too, and vast majority of people are unfamiliar with that foreign language.

It sounds good, but people are forever doing things in a manner that is not efficient, safe, or sustainable.

Why would not the same philosophy apply to weight lifting form - merely picking up and putting down heavy objects - surely we should be able to do that without any help.

There is more than an olympic study though, countless runners, from pure runners to triathletes, have been measured, and while there is some variation depending on "glider" vs "gazelle", the figures given always seem to come out.

And since many people's form is based on nothing natural (overbuilt shoes for instance), your mental thinking that this is the way to do it can easily trump a body attempting to make slight tweaks. Again to foreign language many don't know.
Injury could give a clue if they dwell on the why - but more likely just causes a wait and resume doing it the same way.

So... the famous Jack Daniels' Olympic cadence study. It showed the elites ran at 180 spm and more.
180 is not the magic number. At Olympic speeds, of course their cadence is higher.
It's an exercise in frustration to expect your daily runs to be 180.

Maybe I'm thinking it's only counting Olympic runners AT the Olympics.

And I'm assuming the 180+ is supposed to make you faster.

I know that when I'm faster, my cadence is higher.

So I was thinking that you should only run like that 20% of the time (the 80/20% rule).

Orphia wrote: »

Maybe I'm thinking it's only counting Olympic runners AT the Olympics.

And I'm assuming the 180+ is supposed to make you faster.

I know that when I'm faster, my cadence is higher.

So I was thinking that you should only run like that 20% of the time (the 80/20% rule).

The guidance about cadence is only partially related to speed. The real reason that a cadence upwards of 180 spm is recommended even to 'slower' recreational runners is because focusing on a higher cadence is a helpful proxy for runners to learn how to not overstride. For example, it's really hard to overstride when maintaining a 175-180 spm cadence over the course of a 10 minute mile and the short strides will force the foot to land directly underneath the center of mass.

So, while the 180 spm number is relatively generic guidance, the principle behind it's use for beginning runners makes sense.

thebiggreenmachine wrote: »

DX2JX2 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.

I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.

It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.

While 180 spm is the 'standard' recommended cadence, I've heard that anything above 170 is reasonable enough. At that point, 180 spm is more a matter of pace than form.

There is no ideal cadence. The 180 comes from a misunderstanding of the Olympic study. The study found that most elites RACED faster than 180spm. If they were going for an easy run they would be under 180. The study was not meant to show that 180 was the "proper" rate, at least according to the author of the study.

Your body will determine the proper cadence for whatever pace you're running. To try and force your body to do something it doesn't want to do naturally is wrong. Your body will figure out the most efficient way to run, you just have to listen to it. If you have to think about your form when you run, you're doing it wrong.

I would agree as it relates to sprints and speed work as you will naturally run in an athletic stance for those activities. I disagree as it relates to constant steady slower paced runs as equipment has allowed form to suffer. While the same equipment will prevent injury to a certain extent, it will not be bulletproof forever. As soon as the equipment starts to break down, injuries will follow.

Thus, those who normally run at a steady constant pace do have to learn how to focus on shorter strides with a foot landing directly underneath the center of mass. Or try barefoot/minimalist running shoes. Or make sure that they constantly refresh their cushioned shoes.

These cadence and stride length conversations are interesting. Yes, you can increase your capacity to hit a higher cadence, but a lot of cadence has to do with genetics and simply running faster. Olympic athletes are different from the rest of us in many, many ways. One of those is their ability to fire rapidly, which leads to them being able to run fast. (Pace = stride length x cadence)

With the same runner, cadence and stride length increase with velocity. Sprinters are cranking way above 180. Elite distance runners running fast are running 180+ because they are running fast. Elite runners running easy are running below 170.

Don't beat yourself up if you can't hit some specific number. Do the work--including strides and neuromuscular training--to maximize your ability to run fast, but don't just randomly strive for a number some fitness instructor shouts at you. Get fit enough to run faster and your cadence will increase naturally.

I went back and looked at some Gamin Connect data and looked at some workouts where we vary pace between 5K and MP--so all at some effort. My cadence tracks pace perfectly--at mid-160s when at MP and up to 190+ at 5K pace. (If I could figure out how, I'd paste the graph here.)

Vladimirnapkin wrote: »

These cadence and stride length conversations are interesting. Yes, you can increase your capacity to hit a higher cadence, but a lot of cadence has to do with genetics and simply running faster. Olympic athletes are different from the rest of us in many, many ways. One of those is their ability to fire rapidly, which leads to them being able to run fast. (Pace = stride length x cadence)

With the same runner, cadence and stride length increase with velocity. Sprinters are cranking way above 180. Elite distance runners running fast are running 180+ because they are running fast. Elite runners running easy are running below 170.

Don't beat yourself up if you can't hit some specific number. Do the work--including strides and neuromuscular training--to maximize your ability to run fast, but don't just randomly strive for a number some fitness instructor shouts at you. Get fit enough to run faster and your cadence will increase naturally.

I went back and looked at some Gamin Connect data and looked at some workouts where we vary pace between 5K and MP--so all at some effort. My cadence tracks pace perfectly--at mid-160s when at MP and up to 190+ at 5K pace. (If I could figure out how, I'd paste the graph here.)

Cadence doesn't matter for most AS LONG AS THEY ARE COMFORTABLE THAT THEY ARE NOT OVERSTRIDING. Unfortunately, slow cadence = long strides for many and thus it's worth it to pay attention to your cadence regardless of speed. 180 definitely isn't a magic number but can be a reasonable benchmark.

Vladimirnapkin wrote: »

Overstriding is another thing that is over-worried about. Stride length also increases with pace and people naturally tend towards the stride length that uses the least amount of energy at a given pace. We've been running as long as we've been humans, and proper form gets honed through repetition.

Overstriding isn't about stride length per se, it's about where the foot lands relative to your center of mass. There is no need to worry about stride length, one only need to worry about keeping their foot landings 'soft' (which usually equates to the foot landing under COM and an athletic absorption of shock by the leg).

Go to a local park one day and watch recreational runners. I guarantee that more often than not you will see people plodding along and landing with straight knees and their feet in front of their bodies. These are the people that will benefit from focusing on a shorter cadence and better foot landing position.

I don't disagree that the body will eventually find a way. The only problem is that modern equipment has reduced the need to find the most naturally efficient form and lack of practice means that most people will never find that form before getting injured.

It can be. ^

I'd agree with above comments that it can also be made not to.

(I've also seen people I wondered if they could make it out to a street mailbox normally. Which meant it was extra special they were doing a race.)

I think the problem comes in when someone last ran as a kid, maybe not even a teenager much, and then they pick it up many years later with totally different shoes that totally removes anything close to the "natural" movement they had as a youngster, besides forgetting.

I'll agree though that for someone that runs maybe 3 x weekly at 15-20 min - great form isn't needed. Still useful though?

But then again - perhaps that person doesn't do more because their form leaves them thinking there is no way they would want to attempt more, because of the way they feel afterwards.
I hear those complaints all the time walking around the tables after a race listening in to the folks coming in later - always found that interesting. And they aren't talking about now after the race, they are talking about why they "only" did the 5K or 10K and their training. Obviously other reasons are part of it, but bad form sure isn't going to help.

Anything simple can still be improved usually, even riding a bike can be a great fun experience tooling around the streets. Want to make it easier and safer on knees though, want to go a bit faster and longer - now some suggestions are in order.

What's wrong with having suggestions to potentially help someone make improvements? Agreed no hard and fast "rules" need to be proclaimed.
People are forever asking for suggestions for diet and exercise.
You want to apply it - great. You don't - fine.

Let me premise this by saying that I'm not as invested in "being right" as I am in encouraging more people to run and benefit from all the joy and goodness that running can bring. I just really hate to see people get hurt trying to do the right thing, but being led astray by "bro science."

Artificially manipulating your stride length or cadence will not protect you from injury. This is why I find people giving advice about this to be so very, very irritating. There is zero science behind Pose or Chi running zealotry. In fact, most studies show that changing running form simply moves force from one place to another (e.g., from knees to ankles), and people get hurt. A lot of these discussion start to seem like victim shaming ("Oh, your knees hurt because you're doing it wrong."). I will argue, based on the science, that cadence, stride length, footstrike, and economy are all results of fitness and velocity, rather than cause.

Also, older runners switching to minimalist shoes are just looking for trouble. Sure, our caveman ancestors ran barefoot, but they also very rarely lived to be old enough to be dealing with chronic foot issues. I love (LOVE) my racing flats, but my feet will be killing me if I do anything more than race in them.

If you are a low-mileage runner, you would be better served by some strength training and drills (e.g., strides, skipping, hill sprints, bounding, etc.) than trying to fiddle with your stride. Losing weight and building up super carefully is important, too.

If you want to get some background on running efficiency/form etc. that is rooted in actual, legit science, go to http://sportsscientists.com/sports-science/physiology/page/4/ and look at the Running Economy series. Really great stuff.

Finally, Happy birthday, Tacklewasher! Those are completely reasonable goals. I wish you the best of luck! As someone of a very similar age, I agree that remaining uninjured should be goal #1.

Vladimirnapkin wrote: »

I just get the impression that people want to make running seem a lot more complicated than it really is. It's the most beautifully simple form of exercise and movement.

I agree somewhat but there are things you can do to make yourself a better runner. If you want to get the most out of your ability, you have to look at your form. It is already hard to run 26.2 miles - why make it harder? If you lean forward, you are causing your back and shoulder muscles to fatigue. If you over-stride you are slowing down every time your foot hits the ground. If you swing your arms across your body you are wasting energy and causing your core to tire before it should. All these things make running harder and can be corrected so why not do it?

Orphia wrote: »

Wouldn't trying to increase cadence cause hip problems?

I think @Vladimirnapkin could have a point about cadence being a *result* of 'fitness and velocity, rather than cause'.

Sorry for the long posts, it's been a very quiet couple of days at work!

Running at a faster cadence won't cause hip problems or injury any more than running at a lower cadence. Frequency might increase but it's still a natural motion. In fact, those of us who believe in cadence as a metric believe that it actually reduces the potential for problems because the shorter strides can lessen the force of impact on your joints.

Note that nobody saying that you should focus on cadence in order to increase your velocity or fitness. Proponents of a higher cadence simply believe that all else equal, shorter strides lead to a lower landing force on your joints and muscles. It's an actionable metric to help you determine if you are potentially landing your foot too far in front of your body.

So, yes...cadence is absolutely a result of velocity and condition and I don't think that anybody thinks otherwise. That said, a beginner runner's focus on and increased cadence at any given speed can also help to reduce the force of impact on the legs and thus, reduce the potential for injury.

Cadence as an output and cadence as a metric are not mutually exclusive concepts. 180 spm as the 'ideal' target is a bit ridiculous and overblown but the concept that comes with the target is good.

Similarly, the concept of overstriding has zero concern about the actual absolute length of the stride. That will obviously be determined by speed, height, and individual bio-mechanics.

When we refer to overstriding as a problem, we refer to the act of landing your foot too far in front of your body such that your knee cannot effectively deal with force of impact. This is very simple to see in action...just try to walk with really large steps and see how much shock it introduces to your joints/legs. The shorter the step, the lower the impact force.

I run at 184-190 steps per minute and run between 7:30 and 8:30 miles. I ran with a friend the other day and slowed to 9:30 for her to be comfortable and my app tracked 177/min. Over 68 runs for the year, 177/min was the lowest, 192 was the highest.

Wen2Run wrote: »

The following is my major issue with "running shoes". While running minimalist or barefoot may not be for everyone, there is no evidence that the expensive shoes that retailers are selling you do anything either.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/3/159

I'm personally not a minimalist runner. I have low profile shoes but am considering moving in to minimalist shoes to see if they help with a constant issue I have with knee and hip over distance of 15 miles or more.

First, it's paywalled.

Second, Identifying that there's no peer reviewed articles doesn't mean that it's not been studied. Just that it hasn't been published.

Finally, The following is significant.

Studies that only measured surrogate outcomes such as impact forces, rather than injury rates directly, were excluded.

Wen2Run wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

The following is my major issue with "running shoes". While running minimalist or barefoot may not be for everyone, there is no evidence that the expensive shoes that retailers are selling you do anything either.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/3/159

I'm personally not a minimalist runner. I have low profile shoes but am considering moving in to minimalist shoes to see if they help with a constant issue I have with knee and hip over distance of 15 miles or more.

First, it's paywalled.

Second, Identifying that there's no peer reviewed articles doesn't mean that it's not been studied. Just that it hasn't been published.

Finally, The following is significant.

Studies that only measured surrogate outcomes such as impact forces, rather than injury rates directly, were excluded.

If you are building a multi million pound industry on the basis that all the various supports, cushioning etc and you have evidence that what you are claiming provides the benefits you claim then why wouldn't those studies be published?

Just to confirm, I'm not for or against one type of running. I have cushioned road shoes, 4 mm drop trail shoes and shoes in between. But when it comes down to it, you have an industry which tells you you have a problem. You under pronate or over pronate, then tells you they have the solution, with the added bonus that you should replace them every 300 - 500 miles.

If this was any other business people would be highly skeptical of the claims coming from those who are 100% invested in you continuing to use their product.

I'm very much a fan of healthy skepticism when it comes to marketers and such.

That said, I do have to disagree with your take on this one. One of the ways that I monitor when my shoes need replacing is by watching out for increased soreness/fatigue or the like during/after my runs (I have a rotation of two pairs of the same shoes of staggered aged so I can do direct A to B comparisons).

Without fail, I can tell you when I need to think about replacing a pair of shoes and when the shoes actually have to be replaced and it's always according to shoe age/mileage. I don't discount those who run barefoot or in minimalist shoes but there's definitely a benefit of cushioning to me. It's not scientific evidence, but it's pretty convincing and airtight in my mind.

Could I adjust to less cushioning over time? Probably, but why bother? Last I checked, minimalist and cushioned shoes were pretty much priced the same.